Can Businesspeople Be Great Economists?

Not necessarily argues Paul Krugman in a classic HBR article. Just like training in economics won't make you run your business better. He blames styles of thinking that are not transferable from one field to the other and the fact that economic systems are closed systems whereas business ones are open.

Anyone believing the opposite is true, Paul says, may be afflicted by what is known as the great man's disease: people don't understand that they must equip themselves with new tools and a new vocabulary before being able to make pronouncements in another field that will not be laughed at.

I couldn't agree more. For instance would you trust me doing some morning brain surgery on you?

Really? Let me grab a scalpel then.

Here's One Guy We Should Invite

Aster PM Pe Truve Ki Krwasans Se Pa Tu

Pendan 4 banane linn rod fer nu kwar ki bel farata linn krazer ek so to krwasans. Ler guete so to krwasans mwayen pu pli move to ki moris finn konne depi ki Sithanen inn rant dan politik ek fin kumans servi nu so ban politik ekonomik kuma bann badia mal frir la.

Me se pa tou. Dernier senq an politik ekonomik Ramgoolam/Sithanen/Mansoor finn non selman kree buku povrete li finn usi kree inegalite extrem. Dimann nimport ki ekonomis ki kompran enn tigit kuma fiskalite fonksyoner li pu explik ou linpak enn flat tax. Ti kav fer Pol Krugman ou Tomas Piketi vinn moris explik sa ene ti kut. Selman, fode pa dimann oken ekonomis nimport explik u sa. En attendan u kav chek sa.

Donk PM pe kumans interess li ek krwasans kiltirel. Se sirman parski eleksyons deryer laport. Enfin. Si li envi montrer so bonn fwa li ti kav fer kreol fer so lentre dan parlman jaldi jaldi.

What the IMF Does

It's a one-product institution according to Sebastian Mallaby: help countries having balance of payments (BOP) problems. Well at least in theory. Mauritius for example had to go knock on their doors in 1979 for a structural adjustment programme when economic hell broke loose on our mostly monocrop island.

The MMM, Berenger and Sithanen have used this episode as an indication of apparently typical Labour mismanagement. And an important section of the press has successfully drilled that in the heads of many of our fellow citizens over a couple of decades. They have also tried, this time rather unsuccessfully, to broadcast the lie that external factors are unfavourable only when Paul and Rama are in government. We've called this bluff recently.

It is interesting to note that when the Mauritian flag was raised for the first time sugar represented about 95% of our export earnings. While that was reduced by 20% over the next 7 years as the economic diversification program got underway our economy was still pretty much vulnerable when Gervaise visited us a week before Valentine's day in 1975 wiping out 30% of that industry's output (sugar represented 24% of our GDP in 1975 and 65% of export earnings in 1979).

Neither do we ever hear the fact that the UK was, as per Krugman, forced to accept loans and advice from the IMF -- a humiliation usually reserved for Third World nations. And they took that bitter pill in 1976, that is three years before Mauritius.

Don't Do Like Ramgoolam, Buy From Amazon

Meet another fine pick I read a few months ago. It's by Krugman and it should be compulsory reading for anyone who has anything to do with policy-making or who participates in the increasingly interesting debates going on in our country.

Here's a quote from the preface of the 1994 bestseller: "And I was angry over the way that bad economics and spurious claims of success were being used to justify a program that helped the rich and hurt the poor while doing nothing positive for the economy". Doesn't that ring a bell?

The 10-chapter book contains down-to-earth sections on income distribution, growth and budget deficit. Enough said. I don't want to steal Krugman's thunder. Just click on the following pic and be different from Navin.

Isn't that Weird?

While Obama's first budget is aiming to stop the increasing inequality that has been characterising America since the Reagan days, Sithanen has been doing just the opposite here and shows no sign of slowing down.

Here are three facts to consider how he's been giving relatively more to the rich while impoverishing the middle-class and the poor. The first one is by ending progressive taxation in 2006. That in itself is a highly regressive move and its unfairness has been confirmed by an independent study. It's like a reverse tax revolution: the rich and super-rich hitting the jackpot. The next one is by clobbering a majority of our citizens with too high a rate of inflation. And the final one by not spending public money to solve a few of the problems that seriously exacerbate the "inequality of living conditions" (thanks Krugman!) of too many of our citizens: traffic congestion, non-interrupted water supply and non-competitive energy prices to name just three.

And of course, all of these combine in a vicious manner to bring the fabric of our society closer to tearing.

How Neocons Messed Up America

You get a detailed explanation from Paul Krugman in his 2007 New York Times bestseller entitled The Conscience of a Liberal. I just finished reading the 2009 update a couple of days ago -- which contains a new introduction after he won the Nobel -- and I must say that the analysis in there will sound stunningly familiar to those who know or have figured out how modern Mauritius was really built and why we have been heading in the wrong direction for more than a quarter of a century now. It also contains plenty of ideas to make Mauritius great again. So I would highly recommend it for immediate consumption.

Of course given that it is written by Krugman I have to warn you that you face the risk of seriously improving your writing once you will put down the book.